You might be right that the fame of Dali helped the reception of this work here (and, perhaps, in its original context as well), but I think it's undeniable that this piece has value, regardless of its creator. It brings the viewer to ask a number of questions (primarily "what the hell is going on here?"), which is an important part in assigning value to a work of art.

Nothing at all to do with it? Inspiring curiosity and self-reflection seems to be one of the greatest purposes that art has. When you look at the Mona Lisa, you wonder; when you read Emily Dickinson, you wonder; the list goes on. The artist is trying to reveal something with his works, and the only way to do that without merely rattling off a thesis is to guide the questioning of his viewers.

But it's only an augmenter. People say "what the hell" after I spill a can of beans over my head or a musician farts into his trumpet; or in this case, Dali puts a lobster on top of a phone. But suprising/confusing people isn't enough on it's own to make those those actions valuable. They remain simply an abnormality.

If I were to do this and submit it to a gallery, it would be viewed for what it is. But in this case the value is riding entirely on the name behind it. Like a brand.

I agree with that. Shock value isn't worth anywhere near as much as intention and content. But that isn't to say that any piece that is an abnormality doesn't also have valuable content. With that in mind, how can a viewer discriminate between the two types?